GR L 22072; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22072; August 30, 1967
ALFONSO BUN RAMOS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. EMILIANO CONDEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On May 22, 1963, Alfonso Bun Ramos and his wife filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, against Emiliano Condez and his wife. The plaintiffs alleged that on June 25, 1952, the defendants sold them a two-hectare parcel of land in Mabitac, Laguna, as evidenced by a notarial deed. In early 1956, the plaintiffs discovered that the land sold did not belong to the defendants and they were unable to occupy or cultivate it. The plaintiffs informed the defendants of this situation. On November 10, 1956, defendant Emiliano Condez wrote a letter promising to deliver the two hectares of land sold. Despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to deliver the land. The plaintiffs prayed for an order directing the defendants to deliver the two hectares of land or pay its market value of P12,000.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of prescription (the action was filed more than ten years after the 1952 sale) and failure to state a cause of action (arguing the prayer indicated a desire to either rescind the contract or demand specific performance). The lower court dismissed the case, holding the action was for relief on the ground of fraud, which prescribes in four years from discovery (November 10, 1956), and the complaint was filed beyond that period on May 22, 1963.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal. The Court held that the cause of action, as gleaned from the complaint’s allegations, was either for specific performance or rescission of the written contract of sale, which prescribes in ten years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. The cause of action accrued on June 25, 1952. However, the defendants’ letter dated November 10, 1956, acknowledging the validity of the deed and promising to deliver the land, interrupted the running of the prescriptive period under Article 1155. Counting from November 10, 1956, the action filed on May 22, 1963, was within the ten-year prescriptive period. The Court also noted that while the complaint’s allegations were ambiguous, the proper remedy for the defendants was a motion for a bill of particulars, not a motion to dismiss. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.